2024 Elections

[GoCubsGo]

But ya gotta love the American political system.

[O Really]

Funny. Actually, "hold bankers accountable" is pretty important to all of us as dry as it sounds.

Sure, important maybe, but I don't see it as an issue of significant priority to voters to use as a major ad point. I bet you could set up a kiosk on the street and ask what should bankers be held accountable for and you'd get mostly variations of this:



Who knows what repugs might do if Garvey doesn't make it to the final two. They might vote for the one they hate least; they might not bother to vote. Either way, it's not quite as much as slam dunk for Schiff as it would be if Garvey is in the final two. That would make the vote important to dems as well as repugs and Garvey would get sent to the showers.

[O Really]

But ya gotta love the American political system.

Umm, no, I don't. Even considering the eyeroll.

To continue my rant, we've got repug candidates, with little to no chance to win, running around claiming to be "leading the fight for voter ID." Well, let's see what we have for "voter ID" now. Most voter registration is through the DMV, and is based on the information and documents you've provided, including documents verifying who you are and evidence of residency. You can't make up an address, because (1) it's checked through the postal database for validity and (2) whatever you tell them is where they'll send your licence. So if you want a licence, you have to give them a good address. Your signature is on those original documents and is considered "official." When you vote by mail, your ballot has an identifying bar code and you have to sign the outside of the envelope. That signature is compared to your official one on record. Same with in-person. So somebody tell me how showing a drivers licence improves that. Certainly it's possible to steal somebody's ballot and forge their signature, but there's a good chance of getting caught and even if you don't, how many people trying it would it take to make a difference in an election? There is literally no way an unregistered (or illegal) person is going to get to walk into a voting location and get to vote. Ballots have safeguards against forgers. You can't just go down to Staples and make copies. Yet you've still got repugs standing out on the street corner next to the guy with a "Repent the World is Ending" sign, chanting "voter ID".

You've got people saying property taxes are too high and they'll lower them. They probably don't understand that California property tax rate was frozen years ago and is now the 19th lowest, lower than 20th place North Carolina and 26th place Florida. People pay a lot in California because the price/value of property is so high, not because the rate is high. Yet there they stand, screaming about something they don't understand and couldn't change even if they got into office.

[Vrede too]

Funny. Actually, "hold bankers accountable" is pretty important to all of us as dry as it sounds.

Sure, important maybe, but I don't see it as an issue of significant priority to voters to use as a major ad point. I bet you could set up a kiosk on the street and ask what should bankers be held accountable for and you'd get mostly variations of this:

https://st.depositphotos.com/1973997/19 ... nfused.jpg

If placed in the context of wealth distribution, corporate abuses, Monopoly Guy robber barons, etc, I can see it working, but stand alone in the ads you may be correct. Both she and Schiff must have a tough job IDing meaningful differences and some of that banker scathing made great TV.

If I were Porter I would feature some Mnuchin and other MAGA-team scathing. No reason to cede all anti-MAGA voters to Schiff.

Who knows what repugs might do if Garvey doesn't make it to the final two. They might vote for the one they hate least; they might not bother to vote. Either way, it's not quite as much as slam dunk for Schiff as it would be if Garvey is in the final two. That would make the vote important to dems as well as repugs and Garvey would get sent to the showers.

Who knows indeed, though most will vote given the POTUS election. If it's a "slam dunk for Schiff (or Porter)" vs Garvey, why would the vote be "important to dems"?

Well sure, and Porter would have an easy time if it's she and Garvey. I just think that it's sleazy for Schiff to manipulate voters with support for Garvey and many will resent it. All else equal I would vote Katie because of it. He's leading, Garvey's in second, Schiff should just play an honorable game and he'll likely be a Sen while retaining the respect of feminists, progressives and other Porter supPorters . Both should try to keep Blacks and Latinos engaged, too.

Ftr, If I were in CA I would follow the campaigns and might even vote for Schiff. I'm just in love with Katie because she so darn cute and venomous, but that doesn't mean I can say she's "better" . . . though Schiff will never be cute

[GoCubsGo]

Although it'll never happen, but elections for federal offices really should have standardized federal elections action laws.

[Vrede too]

Although it'll never happen, but elections for federal offices really should have standardized federal elections action laws.

Maybe. Why is it important to IL folks how CA elects its Sens and Reps?

[O Really]

Although it'll never happen, but elections for federal offices really should have standardized federal elections action laws.

Maybe. Why is it important to IL folks how CA elects its Sens and Reps?

Because those are national offices. They may be "from" a given state, but the issues they vote on affect all states.

[O Really]

. If it's a "slam dunk for Schiff (or Porter)" vs Garvey, why would the vote be "important to dems"?

A slam dunk BECAUSE it would be important to dems. Give all the dems, Katie people as well, a reason to show up and keep Garvey out. I'd agree that Schiff might have been better off to keep fences mended and bridges unburned, but he didn't survive 20 years in the House by playing softball. But look on the other hand, if California held a "normal" primary, he'd have to be trashing Katie directly.

[GoCubsGo]

Although it'll never happen, but elections for federal offices really should have standardized federal elections action laws.

Maybe. Why is it important to IL folks how CA elects its Sens and Reps?

They're federal offices, their votes affect you and me.

How citizens vote from availability of mail in and absentee to poll closing times to the goofy ass primary systems in so many states should be a level playing field across the country.

[GoCubsGo]

. If it's a "slam dunk for Schiff (or Porter)" vs Garvey, why would the vote be "important to dems"?

A slam dunk BECAUSE it would be important to dems. Give all the dems, Katie people as well, a reason to show up and keep Garvey out. I'd agree that Schiff might have been better off to keep fences mended and bridges unburned, but he didn't survive 20 years in the House by playing softball. But look on the other hand, if California held a "normal" primary, he'd have to be trashing Katie directly.

He still might.

[O Really]

I'd vote to have some minimum standards for running, too. Why should just anybody, regardless of experience or education, be entitled to see a job making laws for one of the largest nations in the world. We've had people elected to Congress who literally couldn't have been hired as unpaid interns.

[Vrede too]

. If it's a "slam dunk for Schiff (or Porter)" vs Garvey, why would the vote be "important to dems"?

A slam dunk BECAUSE it would be important to dems. Give all the dems, Katie people as well, a reason to show up and keep Garvey out.

Short of the Dem getting caught molesting children I don't see any reality in which Garvey wins.

I'd agree that Schiff might have been better off to keep fences mended and bridges unburned, but he didn't survive 20 years in the House by playing softball.

All that experience didn't make him subtle. I could imagine un-manipulated Repubs and offended Dems getting Katie into the general.

But look on the other hand, if California held a "normal" primary, he'd have to be trashing Katie directly.

It's possible to contrast without "trashing". I'm disappointed that you think so little of Schiff and I'm disappointed that you're okay with it. What has either Porter or Schiff (until now) done that merits "trashing"?

He still might.

My point. His hamhandedness may have backfired and put Katie into the general. If not, he still may have made Dem enemies for life. Shame.

[Vrede too]

Although it'll never happen, but elections for federal offices really should have standardized federal elections action laws.

Maybe. Why is it important to IL folks how CA elects its Sens and Reps?

Because those are national offices. They may be "from" a given state, but the issues they vote on affect all states.

They're federal offices, their votes affect you and me.

How citizens vote from availability of mail in and absentee to poll closing times to the goofy ass primary systems in so many states should be a level playing field across the country.

The Constitution and court rulings establish some minimal requirements, but within those parameters I'm okay with some variability among peoples, local histories and cultures. For all I know CA's system may be superior, or may be superior in CA only.

That said, I'd love to see a constitutional Voting Rights Act reimposed, and partisan gerrymandering banned everywhere. So, maybe we all want a national standard, but just can't agree on what it should be

[GoCubsGo]

That said, I'd love to see a constitutional Voting Rights Act reimposed, and partisan gerrymandering banned everywhere. So, maybe we all want a national standard, but just can't agree on what it should be

Yeah, I knew that would be the next question. If only we could take politics out of it and use common sense.

[GoCubsGo]

Theory being floated on MSNBC.

Democrats win the House.

The current House certifies and seats the next House, they do not certify the Dem victories and retain the House.

Jan 6 certification denied for a Biden win.

Unlikely, but it could happen. They be crazy.

[Vrede too]

Theory being floated on MSNBC.

Democrats win the House.

The current House certifies and seats the next House, they do not certify the Dem victories and retain the House.

Jan 6 certification denied for a Biden win.

Unlikely, but it could happen. They be crazy.

Let them try. We lefties will make J6 look like a garden party, and there's no law against defending elections.

[GoCubsGo]

Let them try. We lefties will make J6 look like a garden party, and there's no law against defending elections.

Cause we're tough!

[Vrede too]

Let them try. We lefties will make J6 look like a garden party, and there's no law against defending elections.

Cause we're tough!

More combat training:



Otoh, we have lots more riot veterans than they do:


BLM Protests Dissolve Into Riots After Activists Attack Federal Building

[O Really]

...
All that experience didn't make him subtle. I could imagine un-manipulated Repubs and offended Dems getting Katie into the general.

But look on the other hand, if California held a "normal" primary, he'd have to be trashing Katie directly.

It's possible to contrast without "trashing". I'm disappointed that you think so little of Schiff and I'm disappointed that you're okay with it. What has either Porter or Schiff (until now) done that merits "trashing"?

He still might.

My point. His hamhandedness may have backfired and put Katie into the general. If not, he still may have made Dem enemies for life. Shame.

I don't know if you've seen any of the ads or not, but I think you may be overestimating the degree that they're offensive. It's a tactic that's been used numerous times in California, including by some "name" people. The ads themselves aren't much different from standard stuff in any election:
"(Opponent) supports..., voted for... is generally awful for the job..." It's sort of a "humble brag" type thing where Schiff doesn't actually trash nor laud Garvey but says accurate things that happen to be exciting to repugs (voted twice for Trump...could take over the Senate) and scares dems at the same time. If Garvey actually had a chance, nobody would be thinking twice about it. Given the free-for-all style of the primary, I don't even think it's inappropriate, although I understand why Katie wouldn't like it.

[Vrede too]

I don't know if you've seen any of the ads or not, but I think you may be overestimating the degree that they're offensive. It's a tactic that's been used numerous times in California, including by some "name" people. The ads themselves aren't much different from standard stuff in any election:
"(Opponent) supports..., voted for... is generally awful for the job..." It's sort of a "humble brag" type thing where Schiff doesn't actually trash nor laud Garvey but says accurate things that happen to be exciting to repugs (voted twice for Trump...could take over the Senate) and scares dems at the same time. If Garvey actually had a chance, nobody would be thinking twice about it. Given the free-for-all style of the primary, I don't even think it's inappropriate, although I understand why Katie wouldn't like it.

I have not seen them. All I know is what you posted to launch this tangent, including Porter saying it's sleazy. If Dems that are leading don't set a high standard for honor, why should anyone play their campaign straight?